If matter is the same as energy, then...

Some of you need to take a step back. I have no idea what is wrong in your lives that some of you resort to these tactics, but I've checkmated the best of you so far. Time for you to simply reflect on your stupid words including the error of your words.

originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Sciforums has lost it's repute and best of all, the intelligence it once had. Shame... so very much a shame.

Click to expand...

You only say that because under the name of reiku your method of stealing pieces of real phsics and then using simplistic algebraic substitution resulting in gibberish was exposed. When the community at large became aware of this methodology and called you on it you became abusive and got banned.

Now everytime you return as a sock puppet you are immediately smacked down because, who want to go through all that silly crap again?

It would be so nice if you did not return (but you will). It would even be alright if you returned with out pretending that you have some understanding of physics and tried to learn a little (but you won't).

originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

In reply to AIP's re: #14 reply.
It's funny you "post" this quote...I wrote virtually word-for-word the same thing in a "Topic", and am then denounced and told, basically, that I'm an "A-hole!" And know nothing of physics theory!

Energy is reference dependent (red and blue shift), while mass is invariant between space-time references. Mass is an absolute, which is the common sense place to anchor theory not the variance of energy and space-time.

Let me give an example, say we have mass converting to energy (E=MC2) such as within trillions of stars via fusion. We will observe this from a range of space-time references.

All the references can see the amount of mass decreasing with time due to fusion, since mass is not reference dependent. The amount of energy is also increasing, due to the fusion, but because of the variance of energy between references, the total energy balance is different for each reference, with none of the references preferred. Each reference will need to make up a different theory for their unique reference dependent space-time centric energy balance.

It comes down to dogmatic appeal by each reference, to their flock, with earth space-time the center of our universe, or else.

Common sense says, to avoid relative dogma, you need to use invariant like the speed of light and/or mass. Relative to our experiment all references see the same initial mass and the same final mass, since mass is invariant. Forget about the illusions of space-time and instead calculate energy, based on E=MC2 , starting with mass. This will be the same for all references. This will make it harder to be fooled by energy and space-time variance.

originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

All the references can see the amount of mass decreasing with time due to fusion, since mass is not reference dependent. The amount of energy is also increasing, due to the fusion, but because of the variance of energy between references, the total energy balance is different for each reference, with none of the references preferred. Each reference will need to make up a different theory for their unique reference dependent space-time centric energy balance.

Click to expand...

You have stated this several other times as if it was fact. The problem is that is not correct, no matter how many times you say it. It is absurd to say that the energy does not balance depending on your intertial frame.

It seems you are saying that using the equation \(E=mc^2\) does not work because the energy measured will depend on your relative velocity to the source of say fusion. Yes, that is true you will get different amounts of energy which will not correlate to the equation \(E=mc^2\). This is because you are using the wrong equation!! The equation \(E=mc^2\) is for a mass with NO relative velocity to the obbserver.

For the scenario that you are using this is the proper mass to energy equivilancy equation \( E=\sqr{(m_oc^2)^2 +(pc)^2}\).

Please stop stating your misconceptions of energy and mass as facts in the science section - you could confuse people

You have stated this several other times as if it was fact. The problem is that is not correct, no matter how many times you say it. It is absurd to say that the energy does not balance depending on your intertial frame.

Click to expand...

It's really apparent with Wellwishers absurd claims, that he just makes them, no evidence to support or anything else, and then runs off, never to be heard of again to discuss his absurd claims. :shrug:

It's really apparent with Wellwishers absurd claims, that he just makes them, no evidence to support or anything else, and then runs off, never to be heard of again to discuss his absurd claims. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Mate, with him, I am simply grateful enough when his posts do not refer to entropy, hydrogen bonding or liberals.

(Though I suppose there is a risk that a discussion on probability may morph into one on entropy…………..)

What did I write using "atom" or "fusion" processes? Are you stating that a "chemical reaction" compares at the SAME level as "fission?" Do you just type asfast asyoucan To anything I

write?

Can you do anything more than just keep asking "what does that mean?"..."what does that mean?" You just refuse to acknowledge the simplest declarative sentence!

.....

What do YOU MEAN by "no one here" says "more power out than in?" This is paddoboys contention, as well as many others!!! Just what do you suppose a "high-energy" particle

accelerator is for, origin...just a really expensive toy?

What do you think is the "ultimate goal?"

Fermilab and many others are seeking the "Holy Grail" of particle physics...MORE energy "out" than "IN". It's just that simple.

.....

The entire effort of millions of man/hrs. and billions of dollars have been expended for 50yrs. attempting to create "sustained fusion from matter". Period.

Everything else is a "side-show" of "gee whiz, we think we might have created a new particle!" (for a millionth/sec., maybe)

.......

Do you have any more questions? Like "what does that mean, what does this mean?"

......

I have a question for YOU, origin!

"How much would a small bucket's worth of any portion of the Sun's matter "weigh" on Earth?"

Take all the time you need to answer.

(Thanks for reading!)

Click to expand...

Man you post some weird stuff. That last question to Origin is a humdinger. He's basically an expert on the subject but allow me to jump in. All matter on Earth weighs its mass times the gravitational constant (approx 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]). You didn't say which part of the Sun you were bringing to Earth, but once you identify it, we can tell you the weight. Of course you'll have to say how much of it you're bringing (I guess we could assume a small bucket is about 2 liters). In any case you're making some kind of statement about volume, which varies in the Sun.

You may not exactly understand what I mean. In any case you may be talking about the average mass of the Sun, which would take into account its dense core. Actually the question seems to be asking what a thimbleful of compacted neutrons would weigh. I'll leave it up to you to decide what you mean. But if you want to learn about this subject more, Origin is professionally trained and can give you lots of help.

It sounds like you misunderstand the meaning of E=mc[sup]2[/sup], although I'm assuming that you understand that the nukes that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki only exploded with the energy of fraction of the mass of the material involved in initiationg the chain reaction, which weighed only about as much as a liter bottle of water (six bottles for the weapon used on Nagasaki).